J. Thurmond

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senate floor privileges be granted to staff members of the Armed Services Committee during the pendency of S. 2057, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999, for today and each day the measure is pending before the Senate and for the rollcall votes thereon: Les Brownlee, Staff Director; George Lauffer, Deputy Staff Director; Scott Stucky, General Counsel; David Lyles, Minority Staff Director; and Peter Levine, Minority Counsel. Charlies Abell, John R. Barnes, Stuart H. Cain, Lucia Monica Chavez, Christine E. Cowart, Daniel J. Cox, Jr., Madelyn D. DeBobes, John DeCrosta, and Marie F. Dickinson. Keaverny Donovan, Shawn H. Edwards, Jonathan L. Etherton, Pamela L. Farrell, Richard W. Fieldhouse, Maria A. Finley, Jan Gordon, Greighton Greene, Gary M. Hall, and Patrick ``Pt'' Henry. Larry J. Hoag, Andrew W. Johnson, Melinda M. Koutsoumpas, Lawrence J. Lanzillotta, Henry C. Leventis, Paul M. Longsworth, Stephen L. Madey, Jr., Michael J. McCord, J. Reaves McLeod, and John H. Miller. Ann M. Mittermeyer, Bert K. Mizusawa, Cindy Pearson, Sharen E. Reaves, Moultrie D. Roberts, Cord A. Sterling, Eric H. Thoemmes, Roslyne D. Turner, and D. Banks Willis.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. I move to lay it on the table. Amendment No. 2781 (Purpose: To require reports on the development of the European Security and Defense Identity within the NATO alliance)

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, the amendment has been cleared.

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I urge that the amendment be adopted.

Mr. THURMOND. I move to lay it on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 2780 (Purpose: To authorize amounts for NATO common-funded budgets)

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to a man who nearly lost his life in the pursuit of Justice, Mr. Ronald Waters, of Columbia, South Carolina. Waters was driving along Interstate 95 in North Carolina around noon on September 23, 1997 when he noticed a North Carolina Highway Patrol car on the side of the road and a Cumberland County Sheriff's car in the median. Upon approaching the scene, he observed one of the officers laying face down next to his patrol car. He then noticed two unidentified men moving between the patrol car and a green Toyota, also parked on the side of the road. Waters called 911 emergency on his cellular phone and informed the operator of the situation. He then pulled off the road to investigate, and upon getting out of his car he heard several gun shots. The two unidentified men then drove off in the Toyota and Waters followed the suspects, all the while relaying their position to the 911 dispatcher. The two men then exited the interstate and traveled down a dirt road. Waters, out of concern for the victim's families, pulled to the side and waited for their return. About five minutes later the Toyota returned and Waters drove in the opposite direction, hoping the suspects would assume he was just another motorist. Once they were out of sight he moved towards the entrance ramp of the interstate, mistakenly under the impression that the two men were in front of him. Not seeing them on the ramp, Waters looked in his mirror and noticed that they were parked on the overpass behind him. Waters then pulled off the ramp and stopped, once again informing the dispatcher of their location. About that time the Toyota began closing in on him at a high rate of speed. As Waters pulled out the two men began to fire at him with an AK-47 assault rifle. The suspects fired several rounds which struck a critical portion of his vehicle, leaving it disabled. Now stranded on the side of the road, Waters watched as the two men pulled up along side him. Then one of the men pointed the assault rifle directly at Waters and pulled the trigger. Waters felt at this point that he would never see his wife or infant son again, but for some unexplained reason, the rifle jammed and would not fire. The two men then sped off, only to be arrested by officers shortly thereafter, due in large part to the constant contact Waters had with the dispatcher in relaying their position to the authorities. Unfortunately, the two police officers who were shot in this incident, Highway Patrol Trooper Ed Lowry and Cumberland County Sheriff's Deputy David Hathcock, were both killed as a result of gun shot wounds inflicted by the two suspects. While it may not serve to make this tragic loss of life any easier for the victim's families, it certainly goes to show that crime does not pay, and those who commit these atrocities will be apprehended. This display of courage by Waters exemplifies the characteristics of true heroism, and serves to reassure the many law abiding citizens that good really does triumph over evil. So often acts of selflessness such as this go unnoticed simply because the danger faced is of a lesser degree, but Ronald Waters is one of many who have risked their lives for what they know to be right. I am pleased to stand before you today, Mr. President, to relay this story of courage and valor personified to its greatest degree. I join the State of South Carolina in honoring Ronald Waters for his adamant service and devotion to Justice, and I thank you for allowing me the time to speak. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. McCAIN addressed the Chair.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. I wish to thank the distinguished Senator for his courtesy.

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, thank you. (The remarks of Mr. Thurmond pertaining to the introduction of S. 2176 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Again, I wish to thank the able Senator from Kentucky.

Mr. THURMOND. About 6 or 7.

Mr. THURMOND. Thank you.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise today as an original cosponsor of the Federal Vacancies Reform Act. This legislation is essential to help preserve and strengthen the advice and consent role of the Senate as mandated in the Constitution. One of the greatest fears of the Founders was the accumulation of too much power in one source, and the separation of powers among the three branches of Government is one of the keys to the success of our great democratic government. An excellent example of the separation of powers is the requirement in Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution that the President receive the advice and consent of the Senate for the appointment of officers of the United States. As Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote for the Supreme Court a few years ago, ``The Clause is a bulwark against one branch aggrandizing its power at the expense of another branch.'' The Vacancies Act is central to the Appointments Clause because it places limits on the amount of time that the President can appoint someone to an advice and consent position in an acting capacity without sending a nomination to the Senate. However, for many years, the executive branch has failed to comply with the letter of the law. The Vacancies Act has no method of enforcement, so the executive branch just ignores it. When confronted with the act, the Attorney General makes very weak legal arrangements about its inapplicability. This is what the Attorney General did over one year ago when I raised the Vacancies Act at an oversight hearing. At the time, almost all of the top positions at the Justice Department were being filled in an acting capacity. I exchanged letters with her about the Vacancies Act, and detailed the fallacy in her argument. It was to no avail. I became convinced that legislation to rewrite the vacancies law and provide some remedy for violating it was the only way to get the executive branch to properly respect the advice and consent role of the Senate. Senator Lott and I introduced legislation earlier this year, and I testified about it before the Governmental Affairs Committee. I detailed for the Committee some prominent examples of how the Act was being ignored. President Clinton allowed the Criminal Division of the Justice Department to languish for over two and one half years before making an appointment. The Government had an Acting Solicitor General for an entire term of the Supreme Court. Most recently, the President installed an Acting Chief of the Civil Rights Division in blatant disregard of the Judiciary Committee's decision not to support his controversial choice. However, let me be clear. This bill is not about any one President or any one nominee. It is about preserving the institutional role of the Senate. A Republican President has no more right to ignore the appointments process than a Democrat President. Today, Senator Thompson, Senator Byrd, Senator Lot, and I are introducing a bipartisan bill to address the problem. It gives the President 150 days to send a nomination rather than the current 120 days. If he does not comply, the office must remain vacant and the actions of any person acting in that office after that time are null and void, until a nominee is forwarded to the Senate. The bill also clarifies the application of the Vacancies Act to reject the Attorney General's flawed interpretation. Mr. President, we must act to preserve the advice and consent role of the Senate. As the Supreme Court has stated, ``The structural interests protected by the Appointments Clause are not those of any one branch of Government but of the entire Republic.'' Reforming the vacancies law is essential in this regard. Let us reaffirm the separation of powers for the sake of the Senate and the entire Republic.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise today as an original cosponsor of the Federal Vacancies Reform Act. This legislation is essential to help preserve and strengthen the advice and consent role of the Senate as mandated in the Constitution. One of the greatest fears of the Founders was the accumulation of too much power in one source, and the separation of powers among the three branches of Government is one of the keys to the success of our great democratic government. An excellent example of the separation of powers is the requirement in Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution that the President receive the advice and consent of the Senate for the appointment of officers of the United States. As Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote for the Supreme Court a few years ago, ``The Clause is a bulwark against one branch aggrandizing its power at the expense of another branch.'' The Vacancies Act is central to the Appointments Clause because it places limits on the amount of time that the President can appoint someone to an advice and consent position in an acting capacity without sending a nomination to the Senate. However, for many years, the executive branch has failed to comply with the letter of the law. The Vacancies Act has no method of enforcement, so the executive branch just ignores it. When confronted with the act, the Attorney General makes very weak legal arrangements about its inapplicability. This is what the Attorney General did over one year ago when I raised the Vacancies Act at an oversight hearing. At the time, almost all of the top positions at the Justice Department were being filled in an acting capacity. I exchanged letters with her about the Vacancies Act, and detailed the fallacy in her argument. It was to no avail. I became convinced that legislation to rewrite the vacancies law and provide some remedy for violating it was the only way to get the executive branch to properly respect the advice and consent role of the Senate. Senator Lott and I introduced legislation earlier this year, and I testified about it before the Governmental Affairs Committee. I detailed for the Committee some prominent examples of how the Act was being ignored. President Clinton allowed the Criminal Division of the Justice Department to languish for over two and one half years before making an appointment. The Government had an Acting Solicitor General for an entire term of the Supreme Court. Most recently, the President installed an Acting Chief of the Civil Rights Division in blatant disregard of the Judiciary Committee's decision not to support his controversial choice. However, let me be clear. This bill is not about any one President or any one nominee. It is about preserving the institutional role of the Senate. A Republican President has no more right to ignore the appointments process than a Democrat President. Today, Senator Thompson, Senator Byrd, Senator Lot, and I are introducing a bipartisan bill to address the problem. It gives the President 150 days to send a nomination rather than the current 120 days. If he does not comply, the office must remain vacant and the actions of any person acting in that office after that time are null and void, until a nominee is forwarded to the Senate. The bill also clarifies the application of the Vacancies Act to reject the Attorney General's flawed interpretation. Mr. President, we must act to preserve the advice and consent role of the Senate. As the Supreme Court has stated, ``The structural interests protected by the Appointments Clause are not those of any one branch of Government but of the entire Republic.'' Reforming the vacancies law is essential in this regard. Let us reaffirm the separation of powers for the sake of the Senate and the entire Republic.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to a man who has rendered a great service to the State of South Carolina through his efforts as a professional law enforcement officer, Carl B. Stokes. Just like his father, who was the Sheriff of Darlington County, Carl Stokes has literally dedicated his life to crime fighting. As a matter of fact, I am told that he is supposed to be the longest serving lawman in the Palmetto State, and his distinguished career began in the 1950's while he was still attending the University of South Carolina and joined the South Carolina State Law Enforcement Division (SLED). In just a few weeks, he will bring that career to a close when he retires from his position as System Vice President for Law Enforcement and Safety for the University of South Carolina. For more than 25-years, Carl Stokes held a number of positions within SLED, including undercover operations, crowd control, investigations, and forensics. As a trusted, competent, and reliable member of SLED, Carl Stokes caught the attention of that agency's chief, J.P. Strom, who tapped Stokes to undertake an innovative and important project- creating a computer system for law enforcement in South Carolina. He is also credited with implementing the first incident-based Uniform Crime Reporting System, which is used by all law enforcement agencies in the Palmetto State. In addition to his work at SLED, Stokes made a number of important contributions to professionalizing law enforcement in South Carolina. He was involved in many organizations, associations, and committees that worked to make law enforcement at all levels more professional and efficient. Through his involvement with these groups, he became very well known throughout the state and region, and his expertise was respected by many. This varied and progressive experience made him an ideal candidate to head up law enforcement and security operations at the University of South Carolina, and in 1981, Carl Stokes returned to college, this time not as a student, but as a cop. Law enforcement on college campuses has changed tremendously in the past twenty years. Colleges and universities have diverse populations that are essentially the size of small cities, and it is critical that such institutions have professional police forces that are trained in everything from community relations to resolving a hostage crisis. Such a responsibility is a tremendous task, but Carl Stokes was able to carry out his duties with seeming ease. Over the past seventeen years, he has helped to make certain that students, faculty, and staff are safe and secure in housing, classrooms, and university property. He and his department have worked closely with the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the United States Secret Service, the Department of State, the United Nations, and a host of other national and international law enforcement agencies in order to provide security to visiting dignitaries as well as to provide police services on the nine USC campuses. Impressively, Carl Stokes also worked to ensure that the University of South Carolina Division of Law Enforcement and Safety gained national accreditation from the Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies. This is an especially noteworthy achievement as this is one of only fifteen college and university police departments in the United States to earn such a professional recognition. I am certain that after such a long and distinguished career, it must be difficult for Carl Stokes to take off his badge and hang-up his gun, but he can do so knowing that in his more than four decades as a law enforcement official, he made countless contributions to the safety and security of society. I am pleased to note that all three of his children have followed in his footsteps in one way or another, his two sons are involved in law enforcement and his daughter works for the University of South Carolina. I wish Carl and his wife health and happiness in the years to come, I know that they will both enjoy being able to spend time with their children and grandchildren and reflecting on a full life.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak for 10 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise today as an original cosponsor of the Judicial Improvement Act. This legislation contains various important reforms of the judicial branch that will help keep the powers of the courts in check with the other branches of government and with the will of the people. This comprehensive bill contains provisions that are important to many senators, and I am especially pleased that two bills that I have introduced and advocated for years are included in this reform package. One would prohibit judges from imposing tax increases, and the other would clarify the retroactive application of legislation. This Act states that a Federal judge does not have the authority to order the Federal government or units of state or local governments to raise taxes as a legal remedy. In 1990, in Missouri v. Jenkins, the Supreme Court permitted a district court judge to order local authorities to impose a huge tax increase to pay for his plan to desegregate a school district. One may wonder why a desegregation plan would be so expensive as to warrant a massive tax increase. The reason is this plan was not simply an attempt to bring schools up to basic standards. Rather, it was an elaborate social experiment in the name of education. Money was no object. Among other mandates, the plan called for 15 computers in every classroom, a 2,000 square-foot planetarium, a 25-acre farm, a model United Nations, an art gallery, movie editing and screening rooms, and swimming pools. Money was no object because there was no control over the judge. There was no accountability. The only supervision was a higher court, and a slim majority of the Supreme Court gave the judge a free reign. The dissent in that case clearly explained what should have been obvious: it violates the Constitutional separation of powers for a judge to order that taxes be increased. In the Constitution, Article I contains the legislative powers. Article I, Section 8 begins by stating, ``The Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes.'' Article III provides for judicial power, and makes no mention of the power to tax. Therefore, a Federal judge does not have the power to tax under the Constitution. This is more than a matter of proper Constitutional interpretation. It is an essential check on power. The ability to tax is an awesome power. It is true that, as Justice John Marshall once wrote, ``the power to tax involves the power to destroy.'' This authority must be carefully checked, and the best source of control is the people. Thus, in the Constitution, the ability to tax was given to the legislative branch, which is directly accountable to the people through the ballot box. By design, the Judicial Branch is different. It is not responsible to the people. The Framers intentionally did not provide for judges to be elected by the people and even gave judges life tenure. They wanted judges to be insulated from the political climate and have the freedom to interpret the law appropriately, rather than make decisions based on the will of the majority at any given moment. It is entirely reasonable and appropriate that judicial power does not include the power to tax. As Justice Kennedy stated in his thoughtful dissent in Missouri v. Jenkins, the Supreme Court's ``casual embrace of taxation imposed by the unelected life-tenured Federal Judiciary disregards fundamental precepts for the democratic control of public institutions.'' The Framers of the Constitution fully intended to separate power in this manner and did not mean for judges to be involved in taxation. As Alexander Hamilton stated in the Federalist No. 78, ``The judiciary . . . has no influence over either the sword or the purse.'' In my view, judicial taxation is simply taxation without representation, no different from the complaints of the American colonists about taxation without representation during the days of the Stamp Act in 1765. Mr. President, if a judge can order a tax increase for a school, why not a similar social experiment for a prison? It is hard to imagine any limits on a Federal judge's power as expressed in Missouri v. Jenkins. I believe it is imperative that the Congress act to control the power of the judicial branch in this regard. Another provision of the bill that I have long advocated would clarify the retroactivity of legislation. Often the Congress will pass legislation but not state whether that legislation should be applied retroactively to conduct that occurred before the law was passed. An excellent example is the Civil Rights Act of 1991. It took years of litigation with decisions in over one hundred Federal courts throughout the country before the Supreme Court finally decided the question. The provision simply states that legislation is not retroactive unless the bill expressly says it is. This simple rule will eliminate a great deal of uncertainty. As a result, it will reduce litigation costs and help our judicial system better focus to reserve its limited resources. This clarification should not be controversial. The Judicial Conference of the Federal courts indicated in a report in 1995 that it did not oppose this legislative fix, and the Clinton Justice Department stated in a letter to me in 1996 that it did not object to this clarification. I hope both of these provisions are passed this year. The Judicial Improvement Act contains many other needed reforms that I will not attempt to detail, such as a requirement for a three-judge panel to enjoin the enforcement of certain laws. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting the judicial reforms contained in this important legislation. I yield the floor.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to a man who was known to many of us in this Chamber, retired Major General Jim Pennington, who passed away on June 5, 1998. Those of us who worked on national security and veterans related matters knew General Pennington very well. He served as both the President of the National Association for Uniformed Services and the Administrator for the Society of Military Widows. In those capacities, he was an able and effective advocate for a strong defense and for providing for an appropriate quality of life for those who serve and have served the Nation as members of the armed forces. General Pennington had an impressive career as a soldier. He joined the Army on June 6, 1944, the day the Allies invaded Normandy and began their march toward Germany and victory, and he fought in the Battle of the Bulge. In his more than 37-year career, Jim Pennington rose from the rank of private to sergeant major, and then ultimately major general, the rank he held when he retired from military service in 1981. As many tens of thousands of other World War II veterans did, Jim Pennington used the G.I. Bill to get a college education. This was an invaluable program that not only provided an important benefit to those who spent years of their lives in military service, but it created a generation of Americans who possessed the skills and knowledge required to make the United States the world's leader in matters of commerce, global security issues, and technology. I had the pleasure of working closely with General Pennington on a number of issues throughout his tenure as the President of the National Association of Uniformed Services and the Administrator of the Society of Military Widows. I always welcomed his advice and insight, and without question, he served the members and organizations he represented well. Jim Pennington will be greatly missed and my sympathies go out to his family and friends.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, for almost two and one quarter centuries, the United States Army, more than any other American institution, has stood at the forefront of protecting the borders, people, and ideals of our nation. Today, I am pleased to have this opportunity to pay tribute to the Army on the 223rd anniversary of its founding. Formed on June 14, 1775, the United States Army is older than the nation itself, and for more than two centuries, its soldiers have stood tall as they carried out their duties patriotically and selflessly. In the history of the Army, more than 42 million Americans have raised their right hands, both in times of crisis and peace, to take an oath to protect and defend the nation from all enemies foreign and domestic. In that time, soldiers have been called to arms numerous times in order to preserve this Republic. From the Battle of Cowpens during our War for Independence, to Bosnia, where our troops help to maintain a fragile peace, those who serve prove that there is no finer citizen, no better warrior, and no more compassionate peacemaker than a soldier in the United States Army. The success and excellence of our soldiers and Army are due to many contributing factors, but certainly the most important is that we live in a nation founded on the ideals of a democratic government. We have created a society that truly affords more liberties, more freedoms, and more opportunities than any other nation in the world. While we may have some differences amongst ourselves, and some problems which must be resolved, no quarrel or dispute will ever undermine the unity of our 50 States. It is this Constitutionally mandated, democratic form of government, where every citizen is free to speak his or her mind, where every American is protected by the laws of the land, and every person has the chance to succeed that makes the United States a promised land to people throughout the globe. All of us recognize this is a nation and system worthy of defending, and our soldiers are the men and women who have volunteered to carry out this critical mission. While our soldiers have always been ``America's Finest'', those who serve in today's Army are truly a breed apart. These are men and women who are well educated, well trained, and well equipped. They are individuals who possess a desire to serve, a strong sense of patriotism, and a willingness to make sacrifices so that others may be safe. We have created a fighting force that uses its mind as much as its might. A force that is able to adapt to fluid contingencies just as effectively as it is able to stick to a battle plan. There is no military force in the world that can match the abilities, capabilities, and spirit of the American soldier or the United States Army, there never has been and there never will be. The very history of this nation and its Army helps to forge the spirit of the modern soldier. The soldier of today can look back on more than 200 years of heritage and fighting spirit that helps to mold the mettle of those who stand firm for democracy and the safety of our nation. Rogers' Rangers, who fought in the New Hampshire mountains during the French & Indian Wars are the forefathers of today's Ranger Battalions. The same grit and determination that saw the first American soldiers through a brutal winter at Valley Forge was evident in Bastogne, Belgium in 1945 when the 101st Airborne Division, though surrounded and outnumbered by German Forces, refused to surrender and by stubbornly standing fast, they helped to win the Battle of the Bulge. The bravery demonstrated by Captain Roger Donlan, a Special Forces Officer who commanded Camp Nam Dong in the I Corps Tactical Zone in 1966, who was repeatedly and seriously wounded while battling off an enemy battalion of superior size was recognized by his winning the first Medal of Honor awarded during the Vietnam conflict. Twenty- seven years later, two Special Operations soldiers were decorated with the Medal of Honor for making the ultimate sacrifice in the streets of Mogadishu, Somalia fighting to protect a critically wounded American helicopter pilot. Their sacrifice allowed that pilot to live, and their actions proved that there is no greater bond than the one between soldiers. Throughout the Army's history, success has been based on an ability to resist complacency, and while today's soldiers are justifiably proud of their past, they are looking and working toward the future. In battle labs across the nation soldiers, strategists, scientists, and designers are working in concert to field an Army that will be able to dominate the battlefield of the next century. Revolutions in weapons, communications, tactics, and strategy are taking place and are being incorporated into Army Doctrine. By the Year 2000, the Fourth Infantry Division will become the first fully digitized division in the Army, and by 2004 the Army will have its first digitized corps. These digitized forces will ensure that commanders know where they are, where their troops are, and where the enemy is, and with this information, dominate the battlefield. Through research and development efforts like the ones that led to the digital division, we are assured that we will remain one step ahead of any nation that might threaten our security, and that we will truly have a force capable of meeting and defeating any threat to our nation, her people, and our interests. As we mark this 223rd anniversary of the United States Army, it is an appropriate time to celebrate the successes of that service; the sacrifices made by millions of soldiers, including the ultimate sacrifice; and the invaluable contribution these men and women have made to keeping the United States and her citizens safe and free. Indeed, the history of our Army is a proud one, and as we approach the 21st Century, I know that its future will eclipse all its previous accomplishments.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill to direct that the vessel, Yesterdays Dream, official number 680266, be accorded coastwise trading privileges and be issued a coastwise endorsement under 46 U.S.C. sections 12106 and 12108. This vessel was purchased in 1984 by Duncan MacRae of Columbia, SC, for a pleasure boat. In attempting to establish a charter service, he discovered that the boat could not be used in a chartering business because the vessel was foreign built. For this reason, the boat did not meet the requirements for coastwise trading privileges in the United States. When Mr. MacRae bought his boat, he was unaware that it could not be legally used for its intended purpose. Therefore, Mr. MacRae is seeking a waiver of the existing law because he wishes to use the vessel for charters. If he is granted this waiver, he intends to comply fully with U.S. documentation and safety requirements. The purpose of the legislation I am introducing is to allow Yesterdays Dream to engage in the coastwise trade and fisheries of the United States. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill to direct that the vessel, Yesterdays Dream, official number 680266, be accorded coastwise trading privileges and be issued a coastwise endorsement under 46 U.S.C. sections 12106 and 12108. This vessel was purchased in 1984 by Duncan MacRae of Columbia, SC, for a pleasure boat. In attempting to establish a charter service, he discovered that the boat could not be used in a chartering business because the vessel was foreign built. For this reason, the boat did not meet the requirements for coastwise trading privileges in the United States. When Mr. MacRae bought his boat, he was unaware that it could not be legally used for its intended purpose. Therefore, Mr. MacRae is seeking a waiver of the existing law because he wishes to use the vessel for charters. If he is granted this waiver, he intends to comply fully with U.S. documentation and safety requirements. The purpose of the legislation I am introducing is to allow Yesterdays Dream to engage in the coastwise trade and fisheries of the United States. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise to speak a word or two about Senator Barry Goldwater. Senator Goldwater was a man of integrity, ability, and dedication. When he announced he was going to run for President, I changed parties that year because I wanted to support this particular man on account of the high principles for which he stood. I did support him. Whether he had a chance to be elected or not, I wanted to have a part in supporting a man who stood for values, who stood for America, and who stood for the good things of life. Senator Goldwater served here for about 30 years. I enjoyed serving with him. On account of that opportunity to serve with him--I knew a good man when I saw one--that is the reason that I supported him for President. He carried my State, and he carried about five or six other States. I was sorry he was not elected. He would have made a great President of the United States. I extend my deepest sympathy to his family in this time of grieving. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. KYL addressed the Chair.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, the very foundation of our Nation lies in the rule of law, and there is perhaps no symbol more closely associated with the process of justice than the courthouse. Not only is the courthouse where justice is dispensed, but it is a reminder to all citizens that the judiciary is the third branch of our system of government. Recently, the Edgefield County Courthouse was rededicated, and Judge Joe Anderson, of the South Carolina District Court, was the keynote speaker at the ceremony. His remarks were very well received by the crowd and helped to make the event a great success. Though I was unable to attend this event, I heard from a number of friends who did that Judge Anderson's remarks were truly excellent. After requesting a copy of his speech, I came to the very same conclusion and thought that my peers in the Senate would enjoy reading them as much as I did. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of this speech be printed in the Record following my remarks.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise today to say a few words about our former colleague and Majority Leader, Senator Robert Dole. There are few people who have given more to this Nation than Bob Dole. He has dedicated his life to public service. He was a young Army officer during World War II, helping to liberate Europe, where as we all know, he suffered his lifelong wounds. He served in the Kansas State House, in the United States House of Representatives, and ultimately in the United States Senate, as Majority Leader, where he left his greatest mark. Even though he no longer holds elected office, Bob still finds ways to contribute to the public good through a variety of efforts, not the least of which is his work on the World War II Memorial. He is truly a man who has distinguished himself through his selflessness, who has rendered the Nation a great service, and is worthy of the respect and admiration of all Americans. A few weeks ago, another one of our former colleagues, Secretary of Defense William Cohen, made certain that Senator Dole knew the high regard in which he is held by the men and women of our armed services by holding a full dress parade in his honor and bestowing upon him the Department of Defense's Distinguished Public Service Award. This was an especially impressive ceremony that weaved together pageantry, heritage, and patriotism in a stirring tribute to both Senator Dole and his service to the United States. I was particularly moved by the remarks of my two friends and want to share them with my colleagues in the Senate, and with the Nation through the Congressional Record. I am certain that all who read these speeches will agree with me that they provide both insight into a modest and private man and a fitting tribute to a true American hero. I ask unanimous consent that copies of Secretary Cohen's and Senator Dole's remarks be printed in the Record.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, as the United States fought World War II, Americans mobilized in support of the war effort like they never had before. Everyone was trying to find a way to help our troops battle the Axis and keep the world free and safe. Whether it was children flattening and saving tin cans that were used for scrap metal, or people growing fruits and vegetables in ``Victory Gardens'', everyone tried to find a way to make their own contribution to winning the war and supporting our men and women in uniform. It was at this time that the American Red Cross took on the responsibility of collecting blood that would ultimately be used to help save the lives of Soldiers, Sailors, Marines, and Army Air Corpsmen wounded in action. The efforts of the Red Cross were truly a success as they helped to reduce the death rate among the wounded by fifty percent. For the past fifty years, the American Red Cross has been responsible for administering the Nation's blood supplies and they have done a commendable job in ensuring that the United States has a ready and ample reserve of blood for those who need it. Just a few days ago, on April 30th, American Red Cross President Elizabeth Dole helped to celebrate the fiftieth anniversary of that organization's Biomedical Services. Her remarks nicely illustrate the contributions and accomplishments of the Red Cross in administering the Nation's blood supply. I think that my colleagues and the public would be interested to read what Mrs. Dole had to say and I ask unanimous consent that her remarks be printed in the Record.